If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The C63 AMG Black and CLK63 AMG Black Series are two very similar vehicles making this for a very interesting comparison. The C63 Black Series really being an updated version of the what the CLK63 Black Series was. When the CLK63 AMG Black Series was announced in 2007 Mercedes shocked a lot of people making such an aggressive track oriented model with no back seats and very wide bodywork. The C63 Black series is much of the same.

So where do they differ? The C63 AMG Black Series is based on a newer W204 chassis and the M156 motor is updated with newer/stronger internals from the SLS and a slightly more aggressive tune. Acceleration between the two is very close in stock form and the C63 Black Series is rated 10 horses higher at 510 versus the older CLK63 AMG BS. Car and Driver puts the acceleration of the C63 Black Series as slightly faster than the CLK63 Black Series with its 1/4 mile sprint of 12.2@118 versus 12.4@116 for the CLK. The CLK63 BS curb weight is 3918 pounds while the C63 BS is a little heavier at 4,044 pounds (Car and Driver does not provide the very important curb weight figures). This means for the C63 Black Series to trap slightly higher with more weight it has to be putting out a little more power which may explain the dyno numbers hit recently that CLK63 AMG Black Series owners seems to not be able to believe.

These cars are not about raw acceleration numbers though as much as performance on the track which is their design goal. So which is better at that task?

For a comparison about track performance Car and Driver sure spends a lot of time talking about the CLK63 AMG BS interior as being dated. They also complain about the seats. It's as if they are surprised the cabin is all business with track performance in mind. The CLK63 Black Series seats are fine as is the cabin speaking from experience. Sure it does not offer modern luxuries and comfort but it isn't supposed to. It's a Black Series Car and Driver not an S-Class, come on now.

Skidpad numbers put the C63 at .93g and the CLK63 at .96g surprisingly. The steering of the C63 is said to be lighter and not quite as tight although the chassis is more responsive offering more feedback. It is also said to be more comfortable. It also offers more stability control and shifting options as a newer car usually will. So which car set the faster laptime?

We don't know. Car and Driver actually took both these cars on the road course and gave us acceleration and skidpad numbers instead of the most vital piece of information which would be the laptime numbers making for a complete failure of a comparison. It should be criminal to not provide the most important part of this comparison and a publication like Car and Driver sure as hell should know better. So, that basically makes this comparison video a waste of time and worthless. We don't need a 7 minute and 47 second video about someone's subjective opinions but at the very least should have some cold hard facts/data out of it. The reviewer, Basem Wasef, states on his Twitter account that he is proud of 100,000 views for this video. This is a video that would never be put out by BenzBoost as it simply does not meet BenzBoost or enthusiast standards as a serious comparison piece.

Nice update and a good video. However I do not believe the info provided is accurate. There is absolutely no way that the C63 BS is heavier than than the CLK BS. I don't know where car and driver got this 4044 lbs number?. If you do the research and check the official curb weight of both cars, you will find that the C63 BS is lighter. Here is one website that lists the C63 BS curb weight at 3770 lbs, which is 200lbs lighter than the CLK BS and provide a better explanation to the quicker 12.2 quarter mile against 12.4

One other thing, lets imagine the C63 BS is heavier by the claimed 120lbs. There is also no way the C63 BS would tap 0.2 seconds than the lighter CLK BS with only 10-15rwhl advantage.

That weight is the figure provided by Mercedes and not an actual test weight. The car is much heavier and over 4,000 pounds without the driver. There are several tests posted confirming this, you can't work off manufacturer estimates. The c63 BS being heavier than Mercedes claims is rather old news.

That weight is the figure provided by Mercedes and not an actual test weight. The car is much heavier and over 4,000 pounds without the driver. There are several tests posted confirming this, you can't work off manufacturer estimates. The c63 BS being heavier than Mercedes claims is rather old news.

I still don't think the new C63 BS is heavier than the CLK63 BS. It doesn't make sense, Why would AMG do that. Hopefully, some member can weigh their cars and give us feedback.

DIN kerb weight, i.e., car with all fluid and fuel tank 90% full, but no driver.
Some European car makers (MB included) now quote only kerb weight according to new EEC (European) standard, which is DIN kerb weight + 75kg (68kg driver and 7kg luggage). Note that many magazines confuse between DIN and EEC figures thus made wrong comparison between cars.

A base north american non track package, non aero package C63 BS is quite a bit lighter than a CLK BS, a track package aero package C is within 20 pounds of a CLK wet with fluids. The 3770 weight is accurate for a base European version, keep in mind north american models only come with the heavy pano roof and the euro version gets lightweight seat and no pano. I own both cars and have had them both on the scales and my track/aero package C is still a hair lighter than the CLK in stock trim.

A base north american non track package, non aero package C63 BS is quite a bit lighter than a CLK BS, a track package aero package C is within 20 pounds of a CLK wet with fluids. The 3770 weight is accurate for a base European version, keep in mind north american models only come with the heavy pano roof and the euro version gets lightweight seat and no pano. I own both cars and have had them both on the scales and my track/aero package C is still a hair lighter than the CLK in stock trim.

I'd have to see your weights.

All independent magazine testing to this point, even with both from the same source, has put the C as heavier thus far.

Also, the US cars don't get the lightweight European seats due to crash test standards which will add a bit of weight to US cars.

So if it exceeds the 3770 quoted weight in European trim considerably, I don't see how the US cars could be any lighter. The US numbers as tested by Insideline correlate with this.

I see absolutely no support for the claim that the C63 BS is lighter than the CLK63 BS let alone quite a bit lighter. Both MotorTrend and Insideline got weights in the low 3900 range for the CLK63 Black Series:

When I first got my BS and did some suspension work I weighed it; no driver, 1/8th fuel load, nothing in the trunk and it came in at 3820lbs. Take it FWIW.
The video posted is about as lame as I can possibly imagine. How many times did that retard say "drift". Seriously ?? As if drifting has any place in determining how fast a car is or can be. Also....that was filmed at Streets of Willow, by far one of the WORST tracks for ANY car weighing that much. As soon as I had 500 miles on my car I took it to Willow and ran both tracks. Streets is way too short and technical for any BS car....yet, I was able to run a faster lap (100% stock on the Corsas) on the big track than our 996 Cup Car with full slicks. Go figure.

Also, the US cars don't get the lightweight European seats due to crash test standards which will add a bit of weight to US cars.

So if it exceeds the 3770 quoted weight in European trim considerably, I don't see how the US cars could be any lighter. The US numbers as tested by Insideline correlate with this.

I see absolutely no support for the claim that the C63 BS is lighter than the CLK63 BS let alone quite a bit lighter. Both MotorTrend and Insideline got weights in the low 3900 range for the CLK63 Black Series:

Sticky, the European seats alone save over 100 pounds. I also know for a fact that the rear seat delate save 71 pounds becuase the question came up on a live chat session with the AMG engineers on PL.

Can you confirm the other equipment on the C BS that they weighed? Did it have aero package? Did it have track package? Aero package consists of front spliter, canards, and large rear wing. Track package includes a trans cooler which adds a little weight not to mention the additional trans fluid the trans cooler requires. THere is over 300 pounds difference between a base European model and track package equiped North American model. My track and aero package C was about 20 pounds lighter than my CLK but I honestly do not know what the exact fuel load was in both cars when I had them weighed. Gasoline is about 8 pounds per gallon so a cull tank vs a near empty could skew the weights by as much as 100 pounds.

When word of the C63 BS was released by MB they had some pretty aggresive weight numbers out there, one would assume the weights they were publishing were European, rear seat delete, non-track package, non-aero package figures. Since I own both cars I would be happy to throw them both up on a scale however my CLK is far from stock and now weighs 4104 pounds with me and a 1/4 tank of gas. If anyone has a stock CLK out there and wants to weigh it run it down to 1/4 tank and go weigh it and I can go re-wweigh mine with a 1/4 tank. Keeping in mind mine is a rear-seat delete, track package and aero package car.

Sticky, the European seats alone save over 100 pounds. I also know for a fact that the rear seat delate save 71 pounds becuase the question came up on a live chat session with the AMG engineers on PL.

Yes, I mentioned this. Let's assume we had European seats available, that makes the weights pretty close to each other.

Originally Posted by JRCART

Can you confirm the other equipment on the C BS that they weighed? Did it have aero package? Did it have track package? Aero package consists of front spliter, canards, and large rear wing. Track package includes a trans cooler which adds a little weight not to mention the additional trans fluid the trans cooler requires. THere is over 300 pounds difference between a base European model and track package equiped North American model. My track and aero package C was about 20 pounds lighter than my CLK but I honestly do not know what the exact fuel load was in both cars when I had them weighed. Gasoline is about 8 pounds per gallon so a cull tank vs a near empty could skew the weights by as much as 100 pounds.

I think this is more that points to them being fairly close.

On the European article it had the Aero package.

Originally Posted by JRCART

When word of the C63 BS was released by MB they had some pretty aggresive weight numbers out there, one would assume the weights they were publishing were European, rear seat delete, non-track package, non-aero package figures.

Yes I'd agree.

Originally Posted by JRCART

Since I own both cars I would be happy to throw them both up on a scale however my CLK is far from stock and now weighs 4104 pounds with me and a 1/4 tank of gas. If anyone has a stock CLK out there and wants to weigh it run it down to 1/4 tank and go weigh it and I can go re-wweigh mine with a 1/4 tank. Keeping in mind mine is a rear-seat delete, track package and aero package car.

We have a small number of weights to work from as is, we can just wait for more tests. As of now, I stand by the tested weights so far.